There are DUI checkpoints all over the state of Delaware, but sometimes understanding their frequency can be difficult to understand. Each state’s frequency is different than one another because of their state laws.ARE DUI CHECKPOINTS CONDUCTED IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE?Yes they are conducted in the state of Delaware.WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY OF THE DUI CHECKPOINTS IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE?DUI checkpoints in the state of Delaware are conducted monthly January to June; Weekly July through December.WHO UPHOLDS THE LAWFULNESS OF THESE DUI CHECKPOINTS?In the state of Delaware, it is upheld under the state law and federal Constitution.HOW DOES A DUI CHECKPOINT WORK IN DELAWARE?When you first approach the DUI checkpoint, an officer will approach your car and is to clearly address his name, and what they are currently doing.The officer will most likely use his flashlight to check your eyes, to see if he sees any hints towards you being intoxicated.The DUI checkpoint uses something called a neutral formula, so the officers at the checkpoint have to treat each driver the same, and cannot randomly stop other cars in the surrounding area.All safety precautions (proper lighting, warning signs, signals, and the clarity of the of the official vehicles) are taken to ensure the quality of the checkpoint stop.Law enforcement has to make sure that the checkpoint goes as smoothly as possible, so they are not holding you up any longer than need be.An officer cannot search your vehicle without having a probable cause, or your permission.If the officer believes you are intoxicated, he/she can ask you to take the breathalyzer test.If you refuse to take the breathalyzer test, the officer can still arrest you under probable cause, or ask you to perform a set field sobriety exercises.While DUI checkpoints seem like they may be a waste of time, they help keep safety on the roads.

The charter bus driver who killed two people plus himself when he sped through a red light and into a city bus in Queens was working illegally for his employer, officials said Tuesday.

SEE ALSO

This is the bus driver who fatally plowed into an MTA bus

Raymond Mong, 49, was driving a two-year-old tour bus owned by Flushing-based Dahlia Group Inc., and travelling up to 62 mph at the time of the Monday crash in Flushing that also injured 16 people, officials said.

The Department of Motor Vehicles has “no record” of being notified by Dahlia of Mong’s employment at the bus company as required by state law given his prior arrest for DUI, according to DMV spokeswoman Tiffany Portzer.

“This is an ongoing state and federal investigation and we cannot comment further,” Portzer said.

Before Mong crashed the Dahlia tour bus into a Q20 bus packed with riders, he was arrested for drunkenly causing a three-car crash in Connecticut in 2015.

Police records show Mong was behind the wheel of a 2002 Honda on April 10, 2015 when he caused the chain car crash on the Exit-51 off-ramp from southbound I-95 and fled.

The DUI bust cost Mong his job as a bus driver for the MTA, where he worked for several years before Dahlia, according to sources.

Meanwhile, Robert Accetta of the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the crash, said Tuesday at a press conference that investigators determined through a surveillance video of the wreck that the tour bus was travelling between 54 and 62 mph. The speed limit in that area is 30 mph.

Accetta said that the agency does not have a cause of the crash yet and that the on-scene investigation will last between 6 and 10 days.

“Throughout the next few days our investigators will work on scene to thoroughly document the accident site and gather factual information,” Accetta said. “Our mission is to understand not just what happened, but why it happened and to recommend changes to prevent it from happening again.”

Authorities are awaiting toxicology tests to determine if Mong was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash.

Investigators are also probing whether driver fatigue played a role in the deadly wreck.

According to Accetta, Mong was properly licensed in the state of New York and had a valid medical certificate.

Investigators are also looking at records from the tour bus company involving driver’s logs, vehicle inspections and maintenance and operating procedures as well as a GPS device found in the commercial bus driven by Mong.

In law, an en banc session (French for “in bench”) is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.

ST. MARTIN PARISH, LA (WAFB) -A 45-year-old St. Martin Parish woman is dead after a motorcycle crash, authorities say.Shortly after 6 p.m. on Saturday, troopers from Louisiana State Police Troop I began investigating a single vehicle fatal crash on US-90 westbound near the St. Martin / Iberia parish line.State police say the crash claimed the life of Ruiella Carriere,45, of Youngsville.The initial investigation by State Police showed the crash happened as 46-year-old Larry Bourque, also of Youngsville, was operating a 2004 Harley Davidson motorcycle westbound on US-90.Carriere was a passenger on the motorcycle, state police say.For unknown reasons, Bourque failed to negotiate a right curve and the motorcycle ran off the left side of the roadway.The motorcycle traveled into the median and struck a sign causing the driver and Carriere to be ejected off of the motorcycle.Initially, state police say Bourque and Carriere sustained moderate injuries and were transported to Lafayette General Medical Center for treatment.At about 11 p.m., state police were notified by medical personnel that Carriere died to her injuries.State police say it is unknown if impairment is a factor in the crash. A toxicology sample was taken from Bourque and submitted to the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab for analysis, standard in crash fatalities.Bourque and Carriere were both wearing helmets, but the helmets were removed before state police arrived. State police investigators are trying to determine if the helmets were DOT approved.This crash remains under investigation.State police issued on statement on motorcycle safety, saying:Troopers encourage all riders to take an approved motorcycle safety course. These courses teach safe riding practices and help you apply safe riding strategies that can help reduce your chance of injury should a crash occur. Making good choices while riding a motorcycle, such as never driving while impaired and obeying all traffic laws, can often mean the difference between life and death.

I had to fight this guy because he was calling me names from across the street, right? Then he calls me ‘chicken’ — screw that, right? Instead of proving I’m not chicken, I crossed the road to get to the other side.

The state’s highest court on Tuesday limited which evidence can be used to prosecute drivers suspected of operating under the influence of marijuana, handing a victory to civil rights advocates in a closely watched case.

Under a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts police officers can no longer cite their subjective on-scene observations or sobriety tests to conclude in court testimony that a driver was under the influence of marijuana.

In limiting the use of the familiar roadside tests designed to provide an approximate measure of drunkenness — walking in a straight line, standing on one foot, and so on — the court found there is no scientific consensus those tests definitively prove someone is intoxicated by marijuana.

The judges also noted the effects of marijuana on its users are more complex than of alcohol and less obviously correlated to the amount consumed, making it difficult for untrained observers to know whether someone is high.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday’s news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

“Because the effects of marijuana may vary greatly from one individual to another, and those effects are as yet not commonly known,” the court said, “neither a police officer nor a lay witness who has not been qualified as an expert may offer an opinion as to whether a driver was under the influence of marijuana.”

Police officers can still arrest drivers they suspect are high and describe in court how the drivers behaved during the roadside tests. For example, an officer could tell a jury a driver was unable to walk in a straight line. But under the ruling, the officer could not describe the task as a “test” or say the driver “failed” it.

Similarly, an officer could tell a jury that a driver smelled strongly of marijuana and seemed confused but could not use such observations to conclude the driver was high

However, the court said jurors “are still permitted to utilize their common sense” in considering whether the sobriety assessments and other evidence indicate impairment.

The defendant in the case is Thomas Gerhardt, who was stopped in Millbury in February 2013 by a State Police trooper for allegedly driving with his lights off, according to a statement of facts agreed to by both sides in the case.

The trooper testified that he saw smoke inside the vehicle and smelled marijuana and that Gerhardt acknowledged smoking about a gram of marijuana. Gerhardt was unable to properly do the “walk-and-turn” test, the trooper said, and struggled to stand on one foot.

The case has not yet gone to trial, amid legal wrangling over which evidence can be admitted.

Rebecca Jacobstein, Gerhardt’s attorney, called the ruling a victory over “junk science.”

“The big take-away here is that for the government to introduce something as science, it actually has to be science,” Jacobstein said.

The decision, she argued, does not make it harder for law enforcement to deter stoned driving.

“I look at this more as a protection of people’s right to have only meaningful and relevant evidence used against them,” she said.

A spokesman for Worcester County District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr., whose office is prosecuting Gerhardt, said the decision “provides much-needed clarity regarding police testimony,” and prosecutors will use the court’s guidance in bringing the case to trial.

“At the end of the day, officers are still going to rely on all their observations and the total circumstances of the stop, and base their arrests on probable cause,” Carmichael said. “We don’t think about conviction rates all the time; we think about public safety.”

Beyond standard sobriety tests, Carmichael said, officers carefully watch how a driver acts in general. He added he was relieved those observations will be still heard in court.

Carmichael called on the state Legislature to follow Colorado and Washington, two other states where recreational marijuana is legal, in establishing a blood concentration limit for THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

“Our law doesn’t have the teeth it needs,” he said.

Both states use a threshold of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood; in Washington any driver at or above that level is automatically considered impaired, while in Colorado those drivers can dispute their condition in court. However, some experts have questioned the validity of any law that specifies a particular blood concentration for impairment.

Jay Winsten, director of Harvard University’s Center for Health Communication and a pioneer of OUI awareness campaigns, praised the court for taking a “middle ground” approach.

“I think it was a wise, smart, and careful decision,” Winsten said. “It keeps field sobriety tests in the picture without allowing police officers to claim they constitute unequivocal evidence of marijuana intoxication, which would be suggesting something that goes beyond what’s currently known.”